• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

Steulen

International Regular
greg said:
England aren't operating the sub rule to its maximum potential. With hindsight i'm sure they will realise that it makes more sense to name one of the bowlers as the sub, with Solanki in the team at the start. Basically it makes more sense to try and compensate for their obvious weakness (batting first) than to magnify their strength (chasing).

That's if they refuse to consider Rikki Clarke of course :ph34r:
Actually, I distinctly recall one of the ommentators this afternoon mentioning that players like Rikki Clarke and Ian Blackwell should be the ones best fot for the supersub role...yes, you read that correctly.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
marc71178 said:
There's no way on earth they can drop Bell.
they would be more justified in doing that then dropping thorpe, after all at test level bell is essentially rather un-proven (albeit he couldnt have done anything more), although imo the likelyhood is that they wont drop anyone till at least after the second test.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Steulen said:
Actually, I distinctly recall one of the ommentators this afternoon mentioning that players like Rikki Clarke and Ian Blackwell should be the ones best fot for the supersub role...yes, you read that correctly.
yes i read that in a newspaper article, the theory behind that is that they can both bat and bowlm i disagree with that completely as they can indeed bat and bowl, but neither at a standard that is required to play for england.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
sledger said:
yes i read that in a newspaper article, the theory behind that is that they can both bat and bowlm i disagree with that completely as they can indeed bat and bowl, but neither at a standard that is required to play for england.
And even if they could both bat an bowl, wouldn't you want them to do both? Picking an all-rounder is just daft, since they can only do one or the other.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
im not in favour of this stupid ruling anyway, but i think as far as england go solanki seems to be the logical choice, if not him then it should probably be someone like bell.
 

greg

International Debutant
Yeah but the point is that as a sub they don't need to be good enough. They only have to be better than the player they are subbing. (and be able to do a respectable job if they are forced, like today to replace one of the specialists early).

So Clarke, for example, has to be good enough to bowl some overs as part or the total of the 5th bowler allocation or be good enough to bat at 8. Both of which he passes comfortably. If like today he was forced by circumstances to sub for Simon Jones, say, before intended England would not be left as exposed as they were in their bowling innings.
 

greg

International Debutant
Of course if you know in advance that you will bat first then you would choose a specialist bowler over Clarke. If you know in advance that you will bowl first then you would choose a specialist batsmen. But you don't know in advance. You are covering all bases.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
clarme and blackweel arent good enough to play any role for england imo, blackwell cant even be put in for a quick slog because he is nowhere near consistant enough
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
greg said:
England aren't operating the sub rule to its maximum potential. With hindsight i'm sure they will realise that it makes more sense to name one of the bowlers as the sub, with Solanki in the team at the start. Basically it makes more sense to try and compensate for their obvious weakness (batting first) than to magnify their strength (chasing).
Yeah I agree. Maybe I'm off the mark here, but couldn't England just do this...

Say they name Harmison as their super-sub and Solanki/Bell in the actual line-up. So if they lose the toss and are sent in to bat, they can have their 8 batsmen and then sub Harmison in for Solanki/Bell. If they for some reason are made to bowl first, they can immediately sub Harmison for Solanki.

I always feel that you're much better off having one less batsman (7 instead of 8) then one less bowler, which leaves you much more exposed.

By naming your bowler who can't bat as your super sub, aren't you then covering all bases without having to name a bits-and-pieces player, which this rule was supposed to get rid of anyway (or well at least I thought that was one of its aims).
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
marc71178 said:
There's no way on earth they can drop Bell.
I concur. However, Bell AND Thorpe must play well knowing KP is waiting in the wings. Added pressure; not only does Bell have to face the best team in the world, he also knows that if he fails, you-know-who may be prefered. Whatever happens this series, Bell and KP look a strong replacement middle-order.

I really like the look of Bell, I hope he does himself justice. Has he batted against Warne, anyone know how he did?
 

The Baconator

International Vice-Captain
Bell played a Totesport game last year against Hampshire and was dismissed lbw by Warne, but he hasn't faced him yet this season.
 

Neil Pickup

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pedro Delgado said:
I concur. However, Bell AND Thorpe must play well knowing KP is waiting in the wings. Added pressure; not only does Bell have to face the best team in the world, he also knows that if he fails, you-know-who may be prefered. Whatever happens this series, Bell and KP look a strong replacement middle-order.

I really like the look of Bell, I hope he does himself justice. Has he batted against Warne, anyone know how he did?
Voldemort? Where?

[Half Blood Prince released in 74 hours, 16 minutes]
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
i wont deny that mine is safetly ordered :p although no doubt it will be more or less the same as the others.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
greg said:
England aren't operating the sub rule to its maximum potential. With hindsight i'm sure they will realise that it makes more sense to name one of the bowlers as the sub, with Solanki in the team at the start. Basically it makes more sense to try and compensate for their obvious weakness (batting first) than to magnify their strength (chasing).
Interesting point.

Select Solanki for Giles and bring in Gilo for one of the lesser fielders if we bat first?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Tom Halsey said:
This is England's selectors here (although in fairness they've been alot better lately).
I'd say that is why they can't drop him, they're much more into a settled line-up now.
 

Top